Incline On the topic of Consequence Persistence & save systems

[JarlFrank]

I'm honestly surprised at how much difficulty you're having understanding that the game would be designed differently if it had a different save system.

So some of my favorite parts of RPGs (C&C, ending slides, difficult final battle that you may have to reload a couple times) wouldn't be in a game with a different save system?

Yeah, even more reason why save anywhere is superior, then

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm honestly surprised at how much difficulty you're having understanding that the game would be designed differently if it had a different save system.

So some of my favorite parts of RPGs (C&C, ending slides, difficult final battle that you may have to reload a couple times) wouldn't be in a game with a different save system?

Yeah, even more reason why save anywhere is superior, then

How is picking a different ending then quickly reloading to see another one an example of C&C?

 

[V_K]

I would say it's fun until you get a game over, which is very different. But even when I do lose in this type of game, I don't feel like the fun I had before is invalidated.

When you lose the first time, maybe. But how would you feel after going through the same dungeon level the fifth time because the RNG gods decided it just wasn't your day? Oh heck, even if it wasn't due to RNG but because it took you that much time to git gud?

 

[JarlFrank]

I'm honestly surprised at how much difficulty you're having understanding that the game would be designed differently if it had a different save system.

So some of my favorite parts of RPGs (C&C, ending slides, difficult final battle that you may have to reload a couple times) wouldn't be in a game with a different save system?

Yeah, even more reason why save anywhere is superior, then

How is picking a different ending then quickly reloading to see another one an example of C&C?

I took Arcanum's ending slides as an example. You know, the ones that reflect even some minor side quest decisions you made throughout the game? All the decisions you make during the game might have an effect on the ending. Not just what you decide at the very end.

But your proposed system of only having a single save effectively means ironman, so if you die, that's it for this playthrough.

So if you want to see the end results of your decisions, you need to replay the game and make the exact same decisions and complete the exact same quests you did on your previous playthrough, essentially repeating the last playthrough step by step.

The game offers enough different choices that you could make different decisions at every point in your second playthrough, but then you'll never know what consequences your original decisions might have had, because that save got deleted upon your death.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Where did I mention Ironman?

 

[Strange Fellow]

I would say it's fun until you get a game over, which is very different. But even when I do lose in this type of game, I don't feel like the fun I had before is invalidated.

When you lose the first time, maybe. But how would you feel after going through the same dungeon level the fifth time because the RNG gods decided it just wasn't your day? Oh heck, even if it wasn't due to RNG but because it took you that much time to git gud?

I've done that, and it was frustrating, but all the better the feeling when I finally succeeded. Again, still not sure why you're talking about this in the abstract when there are plenty of games that have made it work. You already mentioned Dark Souls, which is one of the best ones.

 

[JarlFrank]

Where did I mention Ironman?

Save and exit only, exit save deletes upon continuing

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Where did I mention Ironman?

Save and exit only, exit save deletes upon continuing

I voted for the second option.

 

[Comte]

 

[barghwata]

Where did I mention Ironman?

Save and exit only, exit save deletes upon continuing

I voted for the second option.

Limited saving causes the same problem that Frank mentioned, just to a lesser degree. The harder it is to finish the game the harder it is to see the different endings and C&C that a game has and the harder it is to enjoy it, i don't understand why you're so insistent that limited saving works best for all kinds of games when it's obviously not true, why the fuck bother play a game that has 20 different endings when you can barely get to just one of them.

 

[V_K]

I would say it's fun until you get a game over, which is very different. But even when I do lose in this type of game, I don't feel like the fun I had before is invalidated.

When you lose the first time, maybe. But how would you feel after going through the same dungeon level the fifth time because the RNG gods decided it just wasn't your day? Oh heck, even if it wasn't due to RNG but because it took you that much time to git gud?

I've done that, and it was frustrating, but all the better the feeling when I finally succeeded. Again, still not sure why you're talking about this in the abstract when there are plenty of games that have made it work. You already mentioned Dark Souls, which is one of the best ones.

I haven't played Dark Souls for very long, but as far as I understand it:
- It's a game where you effectively can't die. The consequences of death are quite minor - you still keep your items and your stats. In that regard it's not much different from some of the Ultima titles or PST.
- It has a minimal narrative and no gameplay elements other than combat. So the amount of things you have to redo upon death is also very limited. I would be much more annoying if in addition to repeating some combats you had to go through the same conversations, cutscenes, backtracking and already solved puzzles again.
- Minimal narrative and minor consequences, combined with open-world structure mean that you don't even have to redo the same level upon death and can instead try your luck in a different level.
I don't know about you, but to me it seems like the opposite of high stakes really.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Where did I mention Ironman?

Save and exit only, exit save deletes upon continuing

I voted for the second option.

Limited saving causes the same problem that Frank mentioned, just to a lesser degree. The harder it is to finish the game the harder it is to see the different endings and C&C that a game has and the harder it is to enjoy it, i don't understand why you're so insistent that limited saving works best for all kinds of games when it's obviously not true, why the fuck bother play a game that has 20 different endings when you can barely get to just one of them.

Because I enjoy a challenge in my games.

Spoiler

You're allowed to play with cheats enabled, I won't judge you too harshly.

 

[JarlFrank]

Saving your game has nothing to do with cheats.

Also, optional iron man modes exist. Just use those if the temptation of savescumming is too strong for you.

I rarely savescum, but like making hard saves before difficult fights so I don't have to re-do all the other stuff I've done before that in case I die. I don't need artificial savegame limiters to keep me from reloading whenever something goes wrong. I just don't press ESC, click on "Load Game", and pick the latest save. (No, I don't use quicksaves, because for some reason I never got in the habit of using them; I *only* use hard saves. I don't even know which function key is usually tied to quicksaves.)

In Total War mods, for example, which I love playing, I tend to go with the autosave at every turn option activated, and make a manual hard save before each battle. Why? Because sometimes, those mods tend to crash. The only times I reload those saves is when the game crashes upon battlefield to world map transition. This has happened to me a couple of times, and I was very happy to have those manual hard saves ready for reloading.

Demanding limited saving systems isn't arguing for better game design. It's arguing that you can't get your own habits under control.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Saving your game has nothing to do with cheats.

OK, I'll stop referring to it as 'cheating'.
I'll refer to it as 'game journalist mode'.

 

[JarlFrank]

People who require restrictive save systems to keep themselves from savescumming are also the kinds of people who will use cheat codes all the time if they learn about them.

If you need a restrictive system to keep you from doing something, the problem is with you, not with the savegame system.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

People who require restrictive save systems to keep themselves from savescumming are also the kinds of people who will use cheat codes all the time if they learn about them.

If you need a restrictive system to keep you from doing something, the problem is with you, not with the savegame system.

Are you upset because I won't use your preferred save system pronouns?

 

[Strange Fellow]

- It's a game where you effectively can't die. The consequences of death are quite minor - you still keep your items and your stats. In that regard it's not much different from some of the Ultima titles.

Sure. The thing about Dark Souls in particular, however, is that progress through a level is just as important as the stat gains and items you amass. I also think you understate the penalty - when you die, you also lose all your money as well as your progress towards the next level-up. Anyway, Dark Souls is far from the only relevant example.

- It has a minimal narrative and no gameplay elements other than combat. So the amount of things you have to redo upon death is also very limited. I would be much more annoying if in addition to repeating some combats you had to go through the same conversations, cutscenes, backtracking and already solved puzzles again.

Sure, that's why a limited save system is less suited to a game with lots of talking and cutscenes and whatnot. Funnily enough Dark Souls presented one of the best solutions to this that I've seen: when you die, you respawn, but whatever changes to the world or decisions you made persist (with the exception of enemies killed, which also respawn). This, in combination with the fact that you can't revert to a previous save, makes the decisions you make with regards to NPCs hold more weight. Do you let the prisoner out of his cage? He could be an asset, but at the same time, he could be locked up for a reason - stuff like that. It's a lot more impactful when you can't reload.

- Minimal narrative and minor consequences, combined with open-world structure mean that you don't even have to redo the same level upon death and can instead try your luck in a different level.

Dark Souls isn't open world, and you will in fact have to redo the same level several times until you get it right. I know it bothers some people, but it doesn't bother me. I mean, it bothers me greatly, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

I don't know about you, but to me it seems like the opposite of high stakes really. You literally can't fail at all.

The fact that you will eventually succeed if you spend enough time gitting gud means that you can't fail at all? Wut? By that logic you can't fail in any game with save states regardless of the particulars of the save system. Then the whole concept of failure loses its meaning.

 

[V_K]

The fact that you will eventually succeed if you spend enough time gitting gud means that you can't fail at all? Wut? By that logic you can't fail in any game with save states regardless of the particulars of the save system. Then the whole concept of failure loses its meaning.

I removed the last sentence while you were typing the reply because it does seem somewhat unfair :D
What I meant is that dying in Dark Souls doesn't have any consequences that you couldn't encounter in regular RPG gameplay. Enemies can respawn irrespective of you dying (maybe not in DS but in RPGs in general), same for losing gold or XP (or even levels if you consider level-draining monsters in DnD), same for backtracking. Reaching a game over screen and having to reload is fundamentally different, because depending on how long ago your last save was, you can lose a lot more progress, you lose levels and items and the world state resets.

Dark Souls isn't open world, and you will in fact have to redo the same level several times until you get it right. I know it bothers some people, but it doesn't bother me. I mean, it bothers me greatly, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

I meant that you don't have to redo it immediately if you don't feel like it (assuming you lost your original bloodstain or don't care about it). You'll have to return later, but in the meantime you can try some other route. That makes it a lot less repetitive and bothersome.

Dark Souls is far from the only relevant example.

What would others be (except for roguelikes)?

 

[barghwata]

You're allowed to play with cheats enabled, I won't judge you too harshly.

Hahaha, i played and enjoyed many roguelikes and roguelites (binding of issac, darkwood, battle brothers etc...); i even played Age of Decadence with self imposed perma death just for fun for god's sake, but you don't see me going around around telling people how to play games and imposing my prefered playstyle on everyone else just because i don't want to have to resist the temptation to savescum.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

You're allowed to play with cheats enabled, I won't judge you too harshly.

Hahaha, i played and enjoyed many roguelikes and roguelites (binding of issac, darkwood, battle brothers etc...); i even played Age of Decadence with self imposed perma death just for fun for god's sake, but you don't see me going around around telling people how to play games and imposing my prefered playstyle on everyone else just because i don't want to have to resist the temptation to savescum.

Are you the author of this article by chance?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidt...s-to-respect-its-players-and-add-an-easy-mode

 

[Strange Fellow]

Reaching a game over screen and having to reload is fundamentally different, because depending on how long ago your last save was, you can lose a lot more progress, you lose levels and items and the world state resets.

Yeah, if you're sloppy about saving (I'm very guilty of this) the consequences can potentially be more severe (and also, losing progress because I've forgotten to save in a while is far more frustrating than any permadeath ). But in the situation I provided above, where you're faced with a potentially deadly encounter and have to choose between taking it on or not, with ample time to decide, you'd think to save before taking the plunge. At least I would. I think it boils down to the fact that even though self-imposed saving restrictions are possible, they don't give me quite the same kick. If you can't understand that, we're at an impasse.

Moreover, this is an issue that applies pretty much exclusively to Dark Souls, which isn't representative of limited-save systems in general. You're right that the DS system makes dying less impactful, but to compensate you tend to do a lot more of it. It's an unorthodox system that requires a certain mold and a high degree of commitment in order to work properly, and you won't hear me say that it should become any sort of standard. It just happens to be a variant of restricted saving that works extremely well.

I meant that you don't have to redo it immediately if you don't feel like it (assuming you lost your original bloodstain or don't care about it). You'll have to return later, but in the meantime you can try some other route. That makes it a lot less repetitive and bothersome.

True, and that's a credit to the game to be sure, but in practice I rarely do that. When frustration creeps in I prefer to take a break rather than give up, even if it's only temporary. I could be in the minority here, I don't know. In any case, going through the same level multiple times in a row isn't nearly as terrible as you make it out to be.

That's not to say I disagree - having multiple paths available is nearly always a good thing, whether the game is open-world or not. In the case of Dark Souls it also facilitated the creative shortcuts and looping level design which to many of us made the gameworld feel so special.

What would others be (except for roguelikes)?

Two excellent CRPGs with limited saving are Dark Heart of Uukrul and Wizardry. These games, and many others in the same vein, are all about weighing the allure of braving the unknown against the safety and guaranteed progress of retreating to a save spot (of course they have many other qualities besides, but you get what I mean). It's a great dilemma which has almost entirely disappeared from non-roguelike RPGs.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The vitriol from game journalist mode users towards anyone who suggests games should be difficult is interesting.

 

[V_K]

Two excellent CRPGs with limited saving are Dark Heart of Uukrul and Wizardry. These games, and many others in the same vein, are all about weighing the allure of braving the unknown against the safety and guaranteed progress of retreating to a save spot (of course they have many other qualities besides, but you get what I mean). It's a great dilemma which has almost entirely disappeared from non-roguelike RPGs.

Both of these feature mechanisms that make death much less impactful. So in principle, my original point stands: what you (plural, abstract "you" referring to people insisting on imposing save limiataions) want aren't high stakes proper, but an illusion of high stakes. So no need to get on a high horse about that.

 

[Yaar Podshipnik]

I'm with JarlFrank on this one. Save anywhere, anytime is the sensible option for non-hardcore, edgy, pro-gamers. If you're an adult, with a shred of social life outside of gaming, being able to drop your gaming session at any time is a must.

I would like to add another thing to this debate though - pausing anytime should be an option. In turn-based games that's not as important, but it should be possible to pause the damn game, regardless of any cutscenes and dialogues going on. I was really pissed at Witcher 3 of not allowing to pause like that, fortunately mods fixed it.

Games should give you tools to manage your the time spent on them. How you decide to use those tools is up to you.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Self imposed iron man doesn't fix the shitty aspects of games designed around the assumption the player will reload if bad things happen, which is what we're really advocating against. If you design a game with limited saving in mind you make a better game. You include ways to fail or lose progress besides death. You make dangerous situations take time to resolve and give the player a chance to react, so that if they fail to react properly it's their fault. You make the game worth replaying to try different strategies and see different content you missed the first time. You make the game worth playing even after bad shit happens to you, which gives you a whole different layer of situations you can be in instead of just being totally safe and prepared at all times.